can anyone send a link or full text for summary of the studies that
correlate He and excess heat in LENR? Rich Murray 2010.04.01
Hello Vo,
Since I notice Hagelstein and Lomax both citing about 10 reports of
correlation of He production with excess heat in LENR, I am getting much
more impressed -- can someone send me a link or full text that summarizes
and compares all these reports -- would help clarify the evidence for many
others -- I respect the respect often given on Vo for skeptical discussions.
Thanks, guys and gals, Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick
On 04/01/2010 01:54 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
2010/3/31 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>:
Sent from my iPhone
But when the helium findings
correlate with excess heat, it all changes. The results confirm each
other.
Too much proof makes people doubt.
In what way does that statement make sense?
"I doubt I'll fall down if I lift both feet off the floor at once,
because there's been *too* *much* *proof* of that claim."
What we need is an indisputable
proof of He production. All right it leaks through glass, so how about
a closed cell kept under positive pressure? Surely, after a few days
it would accumulate a sizable amount of He, which couldn't possibly
come from the atmosphere because of the positive pressure.
You'd be surprised at the arguments produced by skeptics. Helium is
funny stuff; it can leak "uphill", against a pressure gradient, even
against a gas flow. The only way to guarantee that no net helium will
leak *into* a cell is to have positive pressure of HELIUM within the
cell, which kind of defeats the purpose of the test.
In short, unambiguous proof of helium production would require
production of an awful lot of helium.
On the other hand, clear demonstration that helium detection is tightly
correlated with excess heat is very clear support for CF claims. It's
also awfully simple -- if that correlation is "too much proof" for some
people to assimilate then I suggest that the problem is not in the
proof, it's in the apparently impaired individuals who can't grasp it!
Michel
